Homosexuality

[hopeandjoy]

Still not reason to uphold DADT. If, by some bizarre chance (because I doubt the first thing on someone's mind when they're away at war is love and sex), there is confession made and everyone's polite about it and there is no hard feelings, what's so terrible? I know that I don't feel flattered when someone confesses to me who I don't like. In fact, I tend to sit there blankly or stutter a bit because I feel awkward and bad that I'm going to hurt someone. But that doesn't mean I'm disgusted.

Also, that "good enough to be part of society" is still terribly homophobic and I really hope that you didn't mean to be, for your own sake.

EDIT: If you mean that, then say that instead of saying something that someone could think was homophobic, Pwnemon.

 

[nyuu]

Societal acceptance is not a measure of merit or virtue.

 

[Pwnemon]

EDIT: If you mean that, then say that instead of saying something that someone could think was homophobic, Pwnemon.

guys with girls is the accepted social norm

Oh look, I did.

 

[hopeandjoy]

That doesn't change the fact you still implied that homosexuals, bisexuals, and pansexuals aren't good enough to be part of society.

Don't say things that can be so easily misinterpreted.

 

[Flora]

So, back to DADT: Has anyone else heard of the phrase "Majority rule, minority rights"? I think it really applies here. Most of those in office are heterosexual, correct? I don't know if that would be considered "majority", seeing as that may or may not be representative of the US population as a whole, but for the sake of argument let's say that it is. In this case, minority rights would be allowing homosexuals to serve in the armed forces and to be open about their sexual preferences without fear of being kicked out.

This idea of "majority rule, minority rights" is one of the underlying principles of the US: after all, in our governmental system, the people as a whole need to be represented, including, even especially, our minorities. However, if DADT prevents open homosexuals from serving in their military, then that's infringing on their rights.

And that, ladies and gentlemen of TCoD, is a good enough reason to get rid of it.

(slightly offtopic, but we really need to discuss this in my APUSH class. I can whip out this argument and the articles cited and hopefully win my classmates over.)

 

[nyuu]

Homosexuality is not the social norm. If that was the entirety of your post, I'd ask "what's your point?". You concluded the thought with "Knowing you're good enough to be part of society makes you feel good". Since societal acceptance is not a measure of merit or virtue, being "good enough" for society has nothing to do with true virtue.

Unpopular minorities are unpopular. What's your point?

 

[Pwnemon]

It was for the argument that "I would feel complimented if a gay guy asked me out and I was straight." I, for one, would feel totally awkward.

 

[ultraviolet]

I, for one, would feel totally awkward.

would you feel as awkward if a woman you weren't attracted to did the same thing?

 

[#1 bro]

holy fucking shit guys. it's like you spend all your time feverishly combing all of pwnemon's posts for the tiniest things which you can pick out and use to call him names. obviously there was nothing homophobic in his statement...........

 

[ultraviolet]

I wasn't trying to have a go at him; I'm genuinely curious. Since I'm bisexual, I can't really answer that for myself.

 

[Harlequin]

When girls are attracted to me I'm basically like "AAAAAA *flail*" because 1) I wouldn't really know what to do with one and 2) it means I have to turn them down, which means 2i) I feel bad, 2ii) they feel bad and 2iii) I have to be all "yyyyyyeah I'm gay".

I'm still flattered, though. It's just, like, whatever. I'm not into that shit but, uh, wevs.

also this thread is still absolutely hilarious, js

 

[Aisling]

DERAIL ALERT

So like. In AP English this week our teacher is reading us selections from banned and controversial books. Because she's pretty lighthearted and likes to share children's books from time to time if they tie in with what we're learning, she started us off with the book And Tango Makes Three, which is about the penguins Roy, Silo, and the egg they manage to care for just fine even though they're both male penguins. She joked about its controversy, too, because she didn't ask for permission to read it to us. "If you have some kind of deep-seated resentment towards me, well- here's your chance!"

At first I was kind of outraged that the book is considered controversial, because as far as I could tell it was pretty innocently telling the story of two male penguins who wanted to do what the heterosexual penguin couples could do (without using any sexual vocabulary, of course) and that their determination paid off when they were given an egg to care for. I ran across this blog entry, which only served to make me more upset on the matter because it goes bashing on bisexuality as well, and then he tries to cover his ass with "I'm against the book because it forces children to contemplate something that they shouldn't be concerned about. It is in the same vein as showing children video of Saddam Hussein being hanged for his crimes or showing them video of the Kurds he gassed in the 80's. Children shouldn't be pulled into the debate over homosexuality." There are plenty of children's books out there about other animals having cute little puppies or kittens or whatever. I have a few from when I was little. Where's the controversy with those?

Thoughts?
edit: it helps if you've actually read it; it never tries to explicitly make a political statement, it just tells a story

 

[Pwnemon]

The other ones aren't trying to make a political statement for one.

 

[opaltiger]

"I'm against the book because it forces children to contemplate something that they shouldn't be concerned about. It is in the same vein as showing children video of Saddam Hussein being hanged for his crimes or showing them video of the Kurds he gassed in the 80's. Children shouldn't be pulled into the debate over homosexuality."

This argument is based solely on the opinion that homosexuality - especially when it intrudes into the all-important nuclear family - is somehow equivalent to a video of a person being executed. "Children shouldn't be pulled into the debate over homosexuality"? That just means "I don't want my kids to know what homosexuality is!" ...And Tango Makes Three is a wonderful book and the only grounds for opposing it are rooted quite firmly in homophobic arguments.

 

[Flora]

Actually, I think this isn't a bad idea at all! The kids are learning from a young age that a homosexual couple can raise a kid just as well as a straight couple, and it may help this generation overcome their parents' prejudice.

(also that blog is stupid, they weren't trying to make an egg, they were trying to hatch a rock cause they thought it was an egg. and actually, by giving the penguins the egg, they were helping it survive cause Tango's parents couldn't hatch two eggs at a time successfully)

EDIT: If it wasn't clear, by "this" i meant "allowing kids to read the book."

 

[ultraviolet]

The other ones aren't trying to make a political statement for one.

hey dude I asked you a question. >( I can understand you ignoring people when they pick at your arguments, but I had a relevant question and everything.

I, for one, would feel totally awkward.

would you feel as awkward if a woman you weren't attracted to did the same thing?

 

[#1 bro]

The issue I think people have with books like this, King and King, and Heather Has Two Mommies are that they exist solely to indoctrinate little kids with certain political ideas, namely "gay marriage is a-ok, vote no on prop 8". I can't imagine what is going through the heads of a teacher who gos out and buys this book to bring in for the little kids - to me it showcases an extremely self-righteous attitude and a severe lack of respect for the beliefs of the people around them. After all, the children's parents might have other ideas in mind for their delicate little angels and might not want a smug liberal kindergarten teacher fucking everything up.

Of course, this raises the following issue: is "should gays get the same rights as heterosexuals" even able to qualify as a political issue? After all, it is so blatantly obvious to any open-minded person that gay marriage should be tolerated, just like it is obvious that minority races should be tolerated and Jews should be tolerated and that men are no better than women. After all, Neo-Nazism is a political movement, should we not be able to teach our kids to accept African Americans in our school?

One might say that the difference here is that the country is fairly divided on gay rights, but a very small minority group is against African American rights. But, as we know, being in the majority does not always make one right or wrong, "500 years ago everyone thought the world was flat". To us, "gays should be tolerated" is an objectively true statement, we well never not be convinced of it, but to some Christians (perhaps over half the U.S. population? it's not unlikely) "God exists" is an objectively true statement, and we definitely don't want prayer in schools. So where does the difference lie? I can't say.

Personally, while, as a teacher, I definitely wouldn't introduce this material in my classroom, as a principal I certainly wouldn't fire a teacher who did either. I think it's wrong to introduce it, but for only sufficiently small values of "wrong". It's more "dickish" wrong than it is "amoral" wrong. To be honest I wouldn't have a problem with a teacher just flat-out telling their students "you should accept gays, gay marriage is a-ok", but reading their kids this story is just subversive and creepy and sounds like indoctrination to me.

You might say "well kids are bombarded by heterosexual imagery all the time, what's wrong with a tiny bit of homosexual imagery", but the fact remains that reading the book aloud is likely to go pretty strongly against the wishes of the parents of about half of your class (depending on where you live, of course), and because of this I feel like it's just not a good thing to do as a teacher.

 

[opaltiger]

The issue I think people have with books like this, King and King, and Heather Has Two Mommies are that they exist solely to indoctrinate little kids with certain political ideas, namely "gay marriage is a-ok, vote no on prop 8".

Yes. In the same way that, until now, little kids have been indoctrinated with the idea, perpetuated by countless children's books, that the only functioning model of a family is a mother, a father, and one or more children.

To be honest I wouldn't have a problem with a teacher just flat-out telling their students "you should accept gays, gay marriage is a-ok", but reading their kids this story is just subversive and creepy and sounds like indoctrination to me.

Okay, look. People are indoctrinated as children. This is a fact of life; it's how children learn. What you're doing is applying the word 'indoctrination' in a context that is strictly speaking correct, but is definitely not what the word suggests to most people. One way kids learn is by reading (or having read to them) children's books. Why you're demonising this practice is quite beyond me. The only reason you find it "subversive and creepy" is because the content of the book is different.

I also have severe issues with the notion that parents always, unequivocally, know what's best for their children, but I suppose that's not suitable for this thread.

 

[#1 bro]

Okay, so are you going to show the kids in your class a children's book on why there probably is no god, because until now, little kids have been indoctrinated with the idea, perpetuated by countless childrens' books, that god is real? Are you going to show the kids in your class a children's book on why anarchy is a good political philosophy because until now, little kids have been indoctrinated with the idea, perpetuated by countless childrens' books, that the US government is wholly beneficial and good? I could go on.

 

[Adriane]

Okay, so are you going to show the kids in your class a children's book on why there probably is no god, because until now, little kids have been indoctrinated with the idea, perpetuated by countless childrens' books, that god is real? Are you going to show the kids in your class a children's book on why anarchy is a good political philosophy because until now, little kids have been indoctrinated with the idea, perpetuated by countless childrens' books, that the US government is wholly beneficial and good? I could go on.

Okay, so are you going on a slippery slope here?